On 9/16/2010 6:07 PM, Steve Simmons wrote: > Named sockets, named pipes, fifos, etc, are another interesting point. None > of those are normally associated with a network service unless one takes > extra steps to do so. Having those items be global because they happen to be > in AFS . . . surprise! And let's again consider what ACLs mean.
I can think of several examples of distributed network file systems within which if a named pipe is constructed in the distributed namespace, it is distributed. LanManager and Plan9 are two obvious examples. > I could go on, and in fact deleted a few paragraphs before sending. In > summary, I don't think turning a global file space into a global service > space should be done without a lot more thought and buyin from the the > developers, the admins, and the end users. Organizations that commit to AFS as their global name space do in fact want mechanisms in that name space to represent both local and remote objects whether they be devices, pipes, sockets, etc. When these objects can be created in AFS it will be important that they have new object types so that clients can distinguish between local pipes/devices/sockets that they are required to manage and remote ones that are managed via file system operations. In the meantime, no client today is capable of using these future object types and as a result I believe that the proper behavior for today's clients is to maintain the object locally and mask it from the file server. That way it becomes possible for future local pipes to be created within the file system directory without breaking today's clients that will not know what to do with them. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
